MIT SPARC Presentation

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Skipjack
Posts: 6039
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

MIT SPARC Presentation

Postby Skipjack » Sun May 29, 2016 8:56 am

Very interesting presentation about how new REBCO HTSCs affect the outlook for nuclear fusion reactors. This is about Tokamaks but the technology developments affect all magnetic confinement reactor designs. Dennis Whyte briefly mentions other magnetic confinement devices and talks about them quite positively.
Even Tokamaks seem to become more attractive with this. It certainly is worth watching. The future of fusion seems to look brighter than ever.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4
Last edited by Skipjack on Tue May 31, 2016 8:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Skipjack
Posts: 6039
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Re: MIT SPARC Presentation

Postby Skipjack » Tue May 31, 2016 8:46 pm

It is interesting, how similar Tokamak Energy's approach is to ARC/SPARC approach by the MIT. Who copied from whom?
http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/05/compac ... .html#more

Skipjack
Posts: 6039
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Re: MIT SPARC Presentation

Postby Skipjack » Tue May 31, 2016 8:56 pm

This may be a naive question, but why can't we simply update an existing Tokamak test reactor, like JET with REBCO HTSCs? They seem to be compact enough to replace traditional magnetic coils. It seems to me that this would be a much quicker way to demonstrate the increased efficiency these REBCO HTSCs promise than to build an all new test reactor with all the things needed to operate it. IF (!), they work as well as MIT and TE seem to expect, then JET could probably beat ITER in terms of fusion output. So why is no one proposing it? Am I missing something?

Ivy Matt
Posts: 688
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 6:43 am

Re: MIT SPARC Presentation

Postby Ivy Matt » Wed Jun 01, 2016 1:21 am

Skipjack wrote:It is interesting, how similar Tokamak Energy's approach is to ARC/SPARC approach by the MIT. Who copied from whom?
http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/05/compac ... .html#more

I couldn't say definitively, but Tokamak Energy does list Professor Dennis Whyte as a consultant. He also features in two videos on Tokamak Energy's YouTube channel.
Temperature, density, confinement time: pick any two.

Skipjack
Posts: 6039
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Re: MIT SPARC Presentation

Postby Skipjack » Wed Jun 01, 2016 2:24 am

Oh duh! Its the same guy! Guess they are somehow cooperating on this :)

Skipjack
Posts: 6039
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Re: MIT SPARC Presentation

Postby Skipjack » Mon Jun 13, 2016 7:26 am

Dennis Whyte and MIT have updated their ARC design. At the same size, they have now been able to increase the fusion power to 1 GW. Great lecture on youtube explaining design details of the ARC. I am NOT a huge fan of Tokamaks, but Prof. Whyte and his students at the MIT have done a fantastic job at designing a tokamak that could be feasible (and economic) as a commercial reactor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkpIVBAxBS4

jrvz
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 5:28 pm

Re: MIT SPARC Presentation

Postby jrvz » Mon Oct 03, 2016 5:15 pm

I just watched one of Prof. Whyte's videos - very impressive. (I'm looking forward to seeing the other one.) He makes the point that the REBCO superconductor allows higher fields which allow a Tokamak to be made much smaller, which greatly reduces the cost and construction time. Would the same hold true for a polywell?

Both machine would also breed tritium from lithium. In ARC, the lithium blanket takes the form of a molten salt, FLIBE, which also acts as coolant and (damage-resistant) radiation shielding. The polywell could use the same method, right?

(Prof. Whyte also liked the higher magnetic field because it made the plasma more stable, but the polywell field curvature already provides stability. He also liked the new REBCO superconductor because the coils could be made demountable, but I don't think that's helpful for a polywell because there's no need to access the inside of the coil.)
- Jim Van Zandt

Skipjack
Posts: 6039
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Re: MIT SPARC Presentation

Postby Skipjack » Mon Oct 03, 2016 9:14 pm

jrvz wrote:I just watched one of Prof. Whyte's videos - very impressive. (I'm looking forward to seeing the other one.) He makes the point that the REBCO superconductor allows higher fields which allow a Tokamak to be made much smaller, which greatly reduces the cost and construction time. Would the same hold true for a polywell?

Both machine would also breed tritium from lithium. In ARC, the lithium blanket takes the form of a molten salt, FLIBE, which also acts as coolant and (damage-resistant) radiation shielding. The polywell could use the same method, right?

(Prof. Whyte also liked the higher magnetic field because it made the plasma more stable, but the polywell field curvature already provides stability. He also liked the new REBCO superconductor because the coils could be made demountable, but I don't think that's helpful for a polywell because there's no need to access the inside of the coil.)

It is my understanding that most magnetic confinement concepts and also magneto- inertial confinement will benefit as well, at what rate depends on the scheme, though. Some may be limited by engineering considerations. One of the limiting factors for the size of that ARC is/was the neutron flux. The improvements to the design that came with the new divertor allowed them to go to further improve on that though. They were able to double the output without increasing the size.

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: MIT SPARC Presentation

Postby ladajo » Mon Oct 03, 2016 9:22 pm

There is a materials issue for high T. Lots of stress between the coils, and on the vessel from the coils. There are also cooling issues, and at high T's weird things can start happening to fluids and components. Everything is magnetic, you just don't always see it until you get high enough T.

I also seem to recall there is some issue with machine dynamics. Can't put my finger on it right now, and could be wrong.

In general, for Polywell, more T is better.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests